Anthropometry of Philipine Workers



Comments



Description

ARTICLE IN PRESSInternational Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497–503 www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon Anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing workers Jinky Leilanie Del Prado-Lua,b,Ã b National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines Manila, Pedro Gil Street, Ermita, Manila, Philippines Research Division, Bureau of Working Conditions, Department of Labor and Employment, Intramuros, Metro Manila, Philippines Received 29 May 2006; received in revised form 31 January 2007; accepted 6 February 2007 Available online 28 March 2007 a Abstract This study conducted anthropometric measurements among 1805 Filipino workers in 31 manufacturing industries. Anthropometric data were measured for standing, sitting, hand and foot dimensions, breadth and circumference of the various body parts, and grip strength. The workplace assessment survey was also done among respondents coming from the subject population to look into the common work and health problems that may be associated with ergonomic hazards at work. The data gathered can be applied for the ergonomic design of workstations, personal protective equipment, tools, interface systems, and furniture that aid in providing a safer, more productive, and user-friendly workplace for the Filipino working population. This is the first ever comprehensive anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing workers in the country which is seen as a significant contribution to the Filipino labor force who are increasingly employed by both domestic and foreign multinationals. r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Anthropometric measurements; Ergonomic design; Workplace assessment; Health and safety of workers 1. Introduction Anthropometry is the science of measurement and the art of application that establishes the physical geometry, mass properties, and strength capabilities of the human body. The uses of anthropometry in the workplace include: (1) to evaluate postures and distances to reach controls; (2) to specify clearances separating the body from hazards such as surrounding equipments; (3) to identify objects or elements that constrict movement; and (4) to assist in the biomechanical analysis of forces and torque. The anthropometric measurements performed in this study can be used as a basis for the ergonomic design of PPEs and workstations that can make work environments safer and more user-friendly. Currently, there is increasing demand for this kind of information among those who develop measures to prevent occupational injuries. In the United States, the body size or body segment measureÃMailing address. Unit 1514 President tower, 81 Timog Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines. Tel.: +63 2 526 4266; fax: +63 2 259 9356. E-mail address: [email protected] ments of some occupational groups differ significantly compared to others. This implies that caution must be exercised in selecting databases for the design and evaluation of machinery, human–machine interfaces and PPEs (Hsieh et al., 2002). This is the first ever comprehensive anthropometric measurement of Filipino workers in the country which is seen as a significant contribution to the Filipino labor force who are increasingly employed both in the local and international market, and by both domestic and foreign multinationals who put up their subsidiary plants in the Philippines. In fact, the top revenue export of the Philippines comes from electronics which is part of the study population. The workplace assessment survey was also used to look into the common work and health problems that may be associated with ergonomic hazards at work. The data will assist regulatory bodies and manufacturers for an overview of health and work issues in the manufacturing sector which should be addressed to obtain both healthy work environment and productivity. The baseline study on anthropometry could be correlated with workplace assessment in future studies. 0169-8141/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.02.004 The survey questionnaire also investigated pain. Many establishments and industries have yet to recognize the importance of ergonomics and anthropometry in the workplace. The sample population was 1805. they found that the design and layout of offices and workstations and access to equipment were suboptimal and promoted unnecessary physical efforts. 53. respectively). with the shortest at 54 in and the tallest at 71 in. 1994). Statistical analyses were descriptive and inferential statistics. Data were encoded using word and SPSS 9. depth. and with work overload.49 times more likely among males.9%. Examples of such measurements are hip breadth. 31 different kinds of manufacturing industries were randomly selected. Two-thirds of these workers also complained of work-related backache. The most common illnesses related to ergonomic problems were backache (56%). no taxes nor license fees on imports to the zone. a goniometer. fatigue and weakness (53. and unrestricted repatriation of capital and profits (Rowbotham and Mitter. 8. the mean sitting height is 84. calipers and anthropometers to measure body segment length. overtime. (Table 10).2%). and correct body positioning. popliteal height and others. The top five hazards identified were poor posture leading to backache (72. height. no minimum investment requirement.7%) weighed less than 80 kg.03) and 153. and circumference. 4. Majority of them were single (60. while head trauma was more likely to occur in small and narrow storage rooms. Export zones are special economic and social enclaves in developing countries. Cuts (46. the privilege to borrow from Philippine banks.8 times more likely to occur with both slippery floors and narrow storage rooms. After the anthropometric measurement. ¼ 8. and 0.6%). Meanwhile.d.0 cm (s. buttock– knee length.7% were males. lecture series on the measurement protocol using body landmarks which are stable. Using logistic regression. Tables 1–9 show the anthropometric measurements of the workers.4%) and below 30 years old (77%). with measurements ranging from 40 to 170 kg. crotch length. Cuts and bruises were 1.d. followed by workers who finished vocational school (23. Among physical and psychomotor stresses. Body physique or anthropometric measurements were done using tape measure.ARTICLE IN PRESS 498 J. in 2003.d.8 cm for males (s. and affectation of activities of daily living. ¼ 8.8%) topped the list of common injuries followed by slipping injury (23. ¼ 8).1%.3% were females while 46.L. Pain was the most commonly reported symptom across all body areas. They were trained on how to conduct the measurement in reference to stable body landmarks used in biomechanics. cuts and bruises were significantly associated with slippery floors. more likely among males. respectively.d. indicating a relatively young working population. ergonomic problems. Table 11 shows the comparative frequencies of symptoms with respect to the different body areas investigated. In this study. and safety issues. work .5) cm for females. This is a strategy adopted by the government to attract multinational investment in the country. Majority (80. 3. In the study conducted by Ijadunola et al. workstation design. and 7.6%). Labeling landmarks before taking measurements improved precision. the top three were visual strain. Experimenters were all researchers from the occupational health and safety research division. Discussion For the past few years. Materials and methods From the sampling plan provided by the export zones. no duties. series of pre-measurements among experimenters to establish accuracy of measurement. Forty-one percent of the workers were high-school graduates. Only 16% of the workers finished college education. ¼ 5.81) and 79. no taxes on exports. Most of respondents (92. overwork (66.d. All were most commonly seen in the upper trunk and lower back (18. poor ventilation (54. ¼ 4. similar problems were noted among the respondents. ergonomic initiatives have been growing in Asia due to increasing local needs. A proportionate random sampling was done from each industry based on the existing workforce involving only the assembly-line production workers. followed by discomfort and limitation of motion. as was also shown in the study of Weinberg et al. heat (66.0.9 (s.50%) of the subjects were between 150 and 174 cm in height (s.08) cm. and chemical exposure (50.2%). Measurement on one subject was done twice by the same person. Training of experimenters and observers were done rigorously for 2 months before the conduct of the study involving orientation on the objectives and methodology of the study. and better investment and trading benefits not readily available outside the zone. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497–503 2.1%.9(s. The benefits given to transnational corporations (TNCs) in export zones in the Philippines include: 100% ownership. functional leg length. A number of studies in some developing countries in the region has contributed in improving the working conditions of locals in terms of materials handling. a workplace assessment survey was conducted among 520 respondents coming from the subject population to investigate the most common hazard exposures. Falls were more likely to occur with slippery and uneven floors. Export zones host multinational companies that operate and hire Filipino laborers at lower wages. For instance. discomfort. and overwork. decreasing the efficiency and productivity of workers. and as such intrareliability measured was r ¼ 0.2%).8%).8%). breadth. knee height. upper arm length was measured from the acromial process to the tip of the elbow. Results Among the 1805 individuals selected. It shows that the mean standing height for males is higher than for females at 167. limitation of motion.3%).8. in 2004. 05 25.00 20.50 66.39 6.88 42.00 48.00 153.83 6.28 6.8 9.99 10.00 18.00 118.00 31.00 35.28 8.00 62.00 53.00 27.00 10.84 73.00 45.00 22.00 47.50 48.00 72.43 103.44 116.63 9.00 5.67 33.00 20.00 190.10 9.00 41.00 195.83 44.00 128.82 52.00 24. Dev 8.34 47. 2002).00 117.00 21.32 10.81 3.00 121.77 111.58 6.00 11.97 4.00 136.50 4.14 72.00 204.00 48.00 213.06 4.15 Mean 5th Percentile 143.00 25.00 79.00 47.00 89.00 41.35 193.96 42.38 4.ARTICLE IN PRESS J. trade unions.54 4.00 155.00 30.00 127.00 45.45 36.40 50.00 191.00 74.00 42.00 43.30 127.00 44.00 128.36 22. varied sectors which include local government units.00 organization and work environment through utilization of locally available resources.00 141.46 153.00 Std.00 196.51 123.12 7.00 89.00 31.47 10.00 50.00 31.25 36.00 28.56 3.00 36.00 25.00 153.60 104.00 10.00 30.00 35.50 52.00 44.00 112.00 74.09 6.10 40.00 28.71 4.80 46.00 67.43 27.04 96.10 29.27 71.00 154.22 6.00 35.00 104.05 190.21 6.00 39.87 80.70 45.00 9.00 44.01 155.18 155.66 35.00 145.92 143.00 40.00 224..00 104.69 4.93 94.00 143.00 169.80 96.33 48.00 90.57 7.73 46.63 95.00 15.00 42.92 68.03 6.00 10.00 Median 95th Percentile 87.41 4.00 123.29 36.22 6. This was also evident in Mexico where the growing manufacturing sector necessitated the need for an anthropometric database for the working population (Lavender et al. industrial associations and the agricultural sector have participated actively in action-oriented ergonomic training programs (Chan and Jiao.91 8.00 46.10 9.50 87.00 59.00 54.00 13.00 138. sitting Popliteal height Buttock width Length of upper leg Length of lower leg and foot Thumbtip reach Overhead fingertip reach.00 67.73 45.72 5.34 45.00 50.43 16.00 58.20 38.00 22.00 51.21 6.00 40.39 5.85 4.19 196.00 16.00 26.00 183.00 177.00 17.47 66.00 17.43 2.29 10.00 73.00 165.23 19.00 40.00 35.38 21.00 59.92 24. sitting Hip height Hip breadth.35 97.80 7.00 81.00 24.50 49.00 211. 1996).00 Median 95th Percentile 92.00 55. In HongKong.06 72.00 112.00 48.44 8.00 72.00 44.11 43.00 31.00 35.44 13.80 79.00 15.15 36.00 Std.19 43.00 41.50 25.33 3.00 45.17 8.12 4.01 3.00 50.40 37.92 6.00 52.00 88.08 167.00 153.50 175.00 9.77 7.33 10.99 25.15 5.00 55.00 69.21 3.00 44.00 12.00 20.81 Female (962) Mean 5th Percentile 73.89 22.39 24.09 3.00 34.20 Median 95th Percentile 178.00 105.40 212.00 20.00 Std.99 2.00 55.97 4.25 4.00 22.14 46.36 36.45 5.00 56.40 6.24 31.00 96.00 67.66 49.00 68.00 36.00 79.05 127.00 47.00 208.00 14. the increasing popularity of using computer-aided design (CAD) prompted investigators to look into the design of a suitable workplace for CAD operators by using .00 97.85 5.00 46.00 134.L.90 47.21 40.18 5.90 6.00 36.09 4.01 137.00 41.92 85.14 65.99 2.00 108.53 7. Dev 8.00 46.00 96.33 8.00 37.00 80.00 32.00 114.00 79.00 62.92 167.28 67. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497–503 Table 1 Anthropometric measurement for standing Anthropometric measurement (cm) standing height Male (n ¼ 843) Female (962) 499 Mean 5th Percentile 157.00 148.49 54.15 4. sitting Thigh clearance height Buttock knee length Buttock popliteal length Knee height.07 7.00 73.72 3.50 7.00 49.00 15.00 29.53 Standing height Eye height Shoulder height Shoulder width Shoulder elbow length Length of upper arm Length of lower arm Forearm hand length Length of arm and hand Elbow height Knuckle height Chest height Chest breadth Waist height Waist hip length Hip width Hip height Knee height Popliteal height Upper reach Overhead fingertip reach Arm span 167.98 40.00 39.00 46.00 19.00 44.00 27.00 Table 2 Anthropometric measurement for sitting Anthropometric measurement (cm) sitting height Male (n ¼ 843) Mean 5th Percentile 78.00 46.00 Median 95th Percentile 165.50 98.00 166.41 15.90 181.43 6.80 45.00 86.00 59.00 74.28 35.45 44.00 102.00 42.35 6.39 12.00 73.00 13.31 7. Dev 4.00 Std.00 26.57 5.32 7.00 134.00 41.00 51.00 61.19 4.00 117.90 52. sitting 84.02 10.00 47.00 47.00 31.00 31.00 42.77 Sitting height Eye height Elbow height Waist height.16 40.00 35.00 128.03 43.50 61.28 32.50 66.00 137.00 79. Dev 5.60 13.38 85.28 8.00 52.83 4.00 33.0 29.00 47.12 6.00 18. In these countries.80 8. 40 8.62 92.68 86.64 70. These measurements can be given to the regulatory body in the Philippines for adoption by industries.43 107. Dev 8. 1996).57 31.34 55.72 Standing (left) Standing (right) Sitting (left) Sitting (right) 38. Dev 6.00 Median 95th Percentile 48. .00 13. Dev 2.L.00 38.85 54.97 4.00 46.36 20.21 21.00 74.00 29.00 12.00 88.42 72.88 94.05 9.83 Forward reach.66 79.58 78.00 105.50 25.44 Head Shoulder Biceps Lower arm Buttock Upper leg Lower leg Chest Waist Hips 55.00 87.86 3.292 9.00 100.41 39.89 5.21 4.00 Table 4 Grip strength measurement Anthropometric measurement (cm) grip strength Male (n ¼ 843) Female (962) Mean 5th Percentile 23.00 45.00 83.43 90.35 8.00 54.10 66.85 29.85 22.00 27.00 8.00 Median 95th Percentile 86.401 5. Dev 7.00 86.68 Elbow to elbow breadth 30.00 85.66 5.00 25.67 28. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497–503 Table 3 Circumference anthropometric measurement Anthropometric measurement (cm) circumference Male (n ¼ 843) Female (962) Mean 5th Percentile 53. Dev 7.00 40.344 8.50 104.53 45.31 9.00 96.086 9.00 33.00 Std.00 Median 95th Percentile 53.00 Std.00 Std.50 106.794 9.80 94.72 22.566 7.00 75.60 40.00 39.00 101.56 9.00 29.46 33.46 Mean 5th Percentile 11.00 Median 95th Percentile 29.00 100.ARTICLE IN PRESS 500 J.00 31.00 Std.035 6.00 37.00 71.00 55.00 79.00 Std.00 98.243 5.45 7. It is the objective of this study to come up with a database of anthropometric measurement of Filipino workers in the manufacturing sector to aid in tool and working equip- ment.08 Median 95th Percentile 79.00 12.52 5.00 23.52 25.69 46.83 84.00 120.00 79. Dev 1. Dev 3.07 Mean 5th Percentile 30.00 Median 95th Percentile 46.00 28.28 92. or directly accessed by manufacturers prior to plant design.00 Std.00 anthropometric data to enhance performance and reduce musculoskeletal problems (Chan and Jiao.28 106.00 Median 95th Percentile 56.53 40.00 83.40 42.00 Std.00 Table 6 Breadth anthropometric measurement Anthropometric measurement (cm) breadths Male (n ¼ 843) Female (962) Mean 5th Percentile 32.00 Std.00 22.80 52.64 54.00 35.00 27.00 53.00 20.00 54.61 Mean 5th Percentile 59.200 24.00 60.74 86. personal protective equipment designs.00 Median 95th Percentile 58.00 30. Dev 2.42 88.00 39.64 38.00 20.14 35.00 76.10 25.00 95.00 92.00 69.28 22.00 Table 5 Depth anthropometric measurement Anthropometric measurement (cm) depths Male (n ¼ 843) Female (962) Mean 5th Percentile 78.00 21.50 25. and other applications.934 Mean 5th Percentile 51.00 19.85 30.499 4.00 31.00 84.59 9.50 22. functional 76.00 29.00 25.00 33.84 20.00 22.63 10.00 41.00 93. Torp et al. Musculoskeletal disorders such as back pain.00 8.64 3.00 11. Mironov et al.23 4.02 19.00 33.37 27.07 1.L.00 8.82 4.93 49. Previous studies have correlated such factors with a wide variety of physical and psychophysiological disorders that impair human well-being and hamper one’s ability to carry out responsibilities at work (DOLE.07 Mean 5th Percentile 14.00 26.00 31.60 17. Dev 1.00 23.75 9.00 In the light of global industrialization.72 7.00 10.50 16.42 10.93 90.00 25.00 8.67 25.60 9.00 24.00 25.00 Median 95th Percentile 18. investigators have turned their attention to organizational variables and work hazards as possible sources of illness and distress among the working population.40 Std.00 Median 95th Percentile 19.00 22.50 6.00 19. 1998). Dev 6.00 31.00 11.85 16.00 93.00 18. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497–503 Table 7 Head dimension anthropometric measurement Anthropometric measurement (cm) head dimension Male (n ¼ 843) Female (962) 501 Mean 5th Percentile 14. These include .97 7. This study has shown that significant associations exist between certain occupational factors and work-related injuries.00 8.67 6.63 3.52 24.50 6.02 5th Percentile 48.00 27.00 7.96 2.00 8.80 4.00 28.03 2. horizontal Ankle circumference Functional leg length Step height 25.18 93. Both have been documented to be significant sources of occupational stress (van Vegchel et al.00 16.93 Mean 5th Percentile 44.11 Foot length Foot breadth.00 16.48 4.00 83. most of them ergonomic and psychosocial in nature. 1999).34 27. In particular.00 20.00 98.53 7.00 Std.50 Median 95th Percentile 60.00 37. 2001..57 17.50 19. in 2001 also reported that social and organizational factors contributed to the development of musculoskeletal disorders among workers.50 25.41 2.50 21.44 4.00 29.50 23.00 9. Dev 1.00 7.50 29.18 1.63 23..00 7.00 90.50 10.23 7.62 30.10 Sleeve outseam Hand length Hand breadth Hand circumference Wrist center of grip length 54.78 9.00 Std.00 19.00 Table 8 Hand anthropometric measurement Anthropometric measurement (cm) hand dimension Male (n ¼ 843) Female (962) 54. 1998.00 31.69 50.64 3.74 28.00 21.50 21.39 8.00 22.00 Std.65 3.00 27.00 10. much attention is demanded to deal with occupational factors and their influence on health and safety of workers.58 Median 95th Percentile 25.09 28.00 Median 95th Percentile 28.00 Median 95th Percentile 55.00 88.44 6.50 7.00 17.21 7.50 27.00 Std. ILO.50 11. Dev 6.68 Head breadth Head length Interpupillary distance Bitragion subnasale arc Bitragion chin arc 17.43 1.00 20.50 15. 1994) and predictors of the occurrence of occupational injuries (Melamed et al.40 26.70 25.00 11.82 4.38 17.00 100.63 9.00 16.00 14.ARTICLE IN PRESS J.95 9.00 Std..23 18.20 4.00 19.00 8. Dev 4.00 29.80 20.00 20.00 8.08 7. Dev 4. shoulder pain and carpal tunnel syndrome have been related to occupational factors.50 18.00 40.76 5.07 1.64 4.00 25.72 7.37 2.00 7. These findings are similar to the work of Lee and Karusse (2002) where physical job demands and constant pressure led to work-related pain and disability.22 20.50 Table 9 Foot anthropometric measurement Anthropometric measurement (cm) foot dimension Male (n ¼ 843) Female (962) Mean 5th Percentile 23.79 Mean 5th Percentile 20. A.005) Falls Head trauma 0. 1999). This was done in the study of Eckhardt et al.L. 5.4 3. steps must be taken to gather anthropometric . W. B. wrists and shoulders Upper trunk and lower back Legs Percentage 69 53 94 63 21 11 41 29 21 12 42 26 23 16 42 35 13.872 (0. Techniques such as occasionally changing posture. a Number with parenthesis—odds ratio.9 5. Work overload 0. wrists and shoulders Upper trunk and lower back Legs Limitation of motion Head and neck Hands. tools. 289–294. in 2005 suggested that BMI and waist circumference were useful for predicting multiple metabolic disorders in non-diabetic Mongolians and Japanese. The gathered data from the 1805 workers in this study will hopefully be applied in the ergonomic design of workstations. van Mechelen. this study was conducted to come up with baseline data on both anthropometry and workplace ergonomic issues which may shed light on controlling occupational illnesses and injuries.. On the other hand. In addition. Slippery floors 3. 2004. D.. wrists and shoulders Upper trunk and lower back Legs Discomfort Head and neck Hands. In addition.498 (0.7 data that can aid in the formulation of ergonomic interventions in the workplace. ( ) in parenthesis—significance level.040) 2. Knol. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 61 (4). 1996). The use of anthropometry and ergonomics in design systems has reduced human error in system performance.018) 0. repetition. it is hoped that this information will be used in the improvement of local working conditions. targeting key problem areas in order to minimize ergonomic problems and related injuries and illnesses. layout designs and interventions that are uniquely well-suited for Filipino workers.156 (0.. small storage room 4.898 (0.. H.ARTICLE IN PRESS 502 J. 1994)...0 2. Since mismatches in anthropometric dimensions has been postulated to be one of the main causes of work-related fatigue and occupational illness (Chan and Jiao. de Vet. equipment. 2004). 1995).3 10.025)a 1. As such.1 5. Table 11 Descriptive statistics of symptoms per body area (n ¼ 520) Frequency Pain Head and neck Hands. interface and furniture design. low job satisfaction..2 18.001) Level of significance originally set at 95% CI for all estimates. The anthropometric data in this study can have many applications. use of proper shoes and footrests have been found to be effective in addressing this problem (Melamed et al.0 4. taking walks or sitting during breaks. The effectiveness of ergonomic interventions on return-to-work after low back pain.. ergonomic interventions applied upon return of sicklisted workers suffering from chronic lower back pain have also been found to be effective (Mironov et al. 2001).1 12. posture..021 (0. force. van der Beek. Sex 2.1 7. Industrial ergonomics and anthropometry are now used to confront the above problems at work.220 (0. Both implementing government agencies and corporate management must work together in the design and implementation of occupational health and ergonomic programs for the welfare of workers in the manufacturing sector. inconsistency between job and education level.1 4. Narrow. in 2003 where they tried to look into the ability of BMI to predict body fat (BF) among youths in four Asian countries and to identify the degree to which additional anthropometric measures improved this prediction. minimized hazards to individuals in the work environment. McKay and Davies (2002) indicated the need for fitness testing of respirators based on anthropometry of the face.204 (. reduced adverse health effects and improved system efficiency (Anema et al. Shiwaku et al. workplace design and workstation layout. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497–503 Table 10 Odds ratio of factors associated with certain injuries in the workplace (n ¼ 500) Risk factors Injuries Cuts/Bruises 1.. Previous studies show the application of anthropometry.. The anthropometric measurements gathered in this study can be applied in the improvement of manual materials handling. References Anema.3 8.0 2. poor workplace. static posture. Cuelenaere.040) 1. and low coworker support (Kerr et al. J. a prospective two year cohort study in six countries on low back pain patients sicklisted for 3–4 months.009) 1. dynamic movement (Schierhout et al.047) 12. It can be used as a reference for body mass index (BMI) and obesity index. among many others. wrists and shoulders Upper trunk and lower back Legs Affectation of daily living Head and neck Hands.1 8.1 6. social environment. Uneven floors 6. No machine guards 5.6 4. Conclusion The gathering of anthropometric data as well as workplace health and safety assessment is a much needed and worthwhile pursuit in light of the increasing incidence of work-related illnesses and injuries.860 (0. physically demanding job. Schierhout. Development of an anthropometric database for Hong Kong Chinese CAD operators.. E. 1995. Capability of respirator wearers to detect aerosolized qualitative fit test agents (Sweetener and Bitrex) with 503 known fixed leaks. 38–43. 2002. 1553–1562. Department of Labor and Employment. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 69 (1)... Predictive values of anthropometric measurements for multiple metabolic disorders in Asian populations.. Ijadunola. 1999.. Nogi. 2002. Eckhardt. Neumann. J. (Ed... Mitter.. 2001. Lee.... Mironov. 2002. K. Neiswanger. S. R. R. C.. Riise. K. . Estimating body fat from anthropometry and isotopic dilution: a four-country comparison. A. In: Stellman. 134–139. J. W. 1998. Kitajima. McKay.. American Journal of Public Health 91 (7). B. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety: Mental Health. 300–304. Kerr. Physical Therapy 81 (7). Y. B. M. Adair.... Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 15 (6). 2003. R. Shiwaku. Roultledge. S... J. Scott. Med Tr Prom Ekol 11. Noise Health 1 (4).. O.ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Shannon. 2001. Melamed. Meijer.. L.. B. A.. 49–56. H. 268. Obesity Research 11 (12)... N. Norman. T. N. G. The impact of social and organizational factors on workers’ coping with musculoskeletal symptoms. Bombardier. Journal of Public Health Policy 23 (3). S.. A. The impact of a worker health study on working conditions. 2005. J.. Journal of Human Ergology 25 (1). de Jonge. Hamers. Department of Labor and Employment Occupational Injury Survey.. 2003.. 46–50... Davies. E. Physiologic and hygienic evaluation of the job and health status in workers of shoe factory. Journal of Advanced Nursing 34 (1). Ile-Ife.. I. Meyers. Abiona.. T.. 1328.. Frank. 479–484. M. A. S. Froom. Kon.. Marazita. S. 2004. S.. Del Prado-Lu / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37 (2007) 497–503 Chan. K. et al. M.. pp. 1994.. Weinberg. M. H. K. A study of female Mexican anthropometric measures useful for workstation design in light manufacturing facilities. Caballero.M. Kristal-Boneh. C. Perceptions of occupational hazards amongst office workers at the Obafemi Awolowo University. Different effort constructs and effort-reward imbalance: effects on employee well-being in ancillary health care workers.. T. Wang. Torp. Biomechanical and psychosocial risk factors for low back pain at work. Onayade. London and New York. Sabol.. 1069–1075.. C.. R. Industrial noise exposure and risk factors for cardiovascular disease: findings from the CORDIS study.). et al. 1994. Geneva. 128–136.. Karusse. Poberezhskaia. Anuurad. Rowbotham.. 20–30. I.L.. G. N. Ijadunola. 1998.. Lavender. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 63 (3). Enkhmaa. Moen. Avila.. 507–518. Bridger. Nigerian Journal of Medicine 12 (3).. Jiao. 1–10. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 52 (1).. W.. Brandon. Marras. J.. Digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a Genex 3D camera system. Blagodarnaia.. Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics. van Vegchel. R. 29–33. E... P... Dignity and daily bread: new forms of economic organising among poor women in the Third World and the First.. J.. 2001. International Labor Organization. Psychosocial and Organizational Factors. International Labour Office. Moikin. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 41 (5). P. Yamasaki. Wells. Work related musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomic stressors in the South African workforce. BLES Report: p. 1996. 52–62.
Copyright © 2021 DOKUMEN.SITE Inc.